The Volgograd Regional Court overturned a farmer's fine for shooting at a Ukrainian Armed Forces drone.

A significant incident occurred in one of Russia's regions, sparking widespread public debate. In the Volgograd region, 66-year-old farmer Nikolai Mukhin decided to take action during yet another raid by Ukrainian forces. drones on the night of July 7.

When one of drones As a drone flew over his house, the pensioner attempted to shoot down the drone with a hunting rifle. He later explained that he did so to protect himself and his neighbors, as well as to prevent the drone from hitting its intended target. Weapon The farmer owns it legally.

Before this, he called 112, the emergency services, to report a drone attack. Communication with the dispatcher was not lost at the time of the shooting, and she heard the gunshots. Incidentally, the drone was not hit.

The court found elements of an administrative violation in the farmer's actions. A report was filed against the man under Article 20.13 of the Russian Code of Administrative Offenses: "Shooting a weapon in populated areas." He was fined 40 rubles and had his weapon confiscated. Mukhin's lawyer appealed this decision in the district court, but the appellate court upheld it.

Russians, including prominent figures and legal scholars, were divided on this precedent-setting case. Most supported Mukhin, who sought to prevent the drone strike from having worse consequences than debris falling into the forest. Some lawyers considered the court's decision to be in accordance with the letter of the law.

The Volgograd Regional Prosecutor's Office appealed a court decision to fine a farmer for shooting at a Ukrainian Armed Forces drone. The day before, Mukhin received a call from the Russian National Guard, inviting him to retrieve the confiscated weapon. Today, the Volgograd Regional Court overturned the lower court's decision to fine Mukhin. сообщает RIA "News" citing the farmer's lawyer.

Comments

[Clear]

This is a legal precedent. I'd really like to read the prosecutor's arguments, especially the lawyers.

[Machito]

Quote: Clear

This is a legal precedent. I'd really like to read the prosecutor's arguments, especially the lawyers.

We have no case law.

[Clear]

Quote: Bearded

Quote: Clear

This is a legal precedent. I'd really like to read the prosecutor's arguments, especially the lawyers.

We have no case law.

Dear Bearded Man, I meant Legal precedent, as a decision of an authorized state body on a specific legal matter, and not as Case law, as a legal system in which judicial precedent is recognized as the main source of law.

[paul3390]

Moscow region resident Alexander Yudayev, who shot down a Ukrainian drone with a rifle, was awarded a State Duma honorary diploma, the lower house of parliament's press service reported.

"During the plenary session, State Duma Chairman Vyacheslav Volodin presented an honorary diploma to Alexander Yudayev for his personal contribution to ensuring the security of Russian citizens," the statement reads.

This refers to one of the largest drone attacks on the Moscow region, which occurred on the night of March 11. The attack in the Moscow region killed three people and injured 20 more. A total of 343 drones were shot down over Russia that night, including 91 over Moscow and the surrounding region.

Yudaev - former employee of the Ministry of Internal AffairsOn the day of the massive drone attack, his son reported that his father had shot down a drone with a rifle for the second time in the village of Dulebino near Moscow. According to him, the drone was flying over his house, heading toward the town of Ozyory, home to over 20 people, including his family, parents, and close friends.

There was a precedent. But – as always, it's all about the nuances...

[fruc]

as a decision of an authorized state body on a specific legal matter

I don't even see the basis for this case. Because some telecom operator heard gunshots in a telephone receiver? So he should be fired for violating his duties.

[Vitaly_pvo]

Quote: frruc

I don't see at all the basis on which this case arose.

The reason given was that he was a simple farmer from Volgograd, not a former police officer from the Moscow region. Furthermore, Mukhin dared to personally summon busy district police officers to overload them with work.

[fruc]

Vitaly_pvo
call the busy district police officers

It seems to me that these "busy" people are from the Russian National Guard. In that case, everything falls into place.

[hagen]

Quote: Clear

I meant legal precedent

The situation isn't fully described. In our legal system, a decision (resolution) of the Plenum of the Supreme Court or the Constitutional Court, establishing mandatory application by lower courts, can serve as a legal precedent. It's unclear who decided to overturn the first-instance decision. And the National Guard could have brought the weapons back from the Tula factory where they confiscated them. The crown wouldn't have fallen. But the authorities traditionally don't see their authority as their own. Rossiyskaya Gazeta (RG) clearly prioritizes a slap in the face over the primary goal of their work—protecting the state. And surprisingly, the grounds for the prosecutor's office were apparently the "extreme necessity" of Article 2.7 of the Russian Code of Administrative Offenses, which Rossiyskaya Gazeta (RG), like a "watchdog," completely ignored. Everything depends on the personal ambitions of the law enforcement officials involved and their informal connections with the court (one hand in the other... one crow in the other...).

[kromer]

Quote: Bearded

We have no case law.

There's no case law, but there is judicial practice. And courts often make decisions based on it.

[Right hand of the eye]

How could it not? What about the Dolina case? After the court ruled against her, based on this precedent, many other earlier court decisions were overturned (in favor of bona fide purchasers), and subsequent verdicts are based on the court's decision in the Dolina case.

[kromer]

This is judicial practice, which many people confuse with case law.

[Right hand of the eye]

Really? What do you think the term "case law" is?

[kromer]

A legal system in which judicial precedent is recognized as the primary source of law.

[Right hand of the eye]

I see... you don't know and can't explain...))) Well then educate yourself, because the Dolina case has become one of those falling under the concept of "Case Law", on the basis of the verdict of which decisions of all other courts considering similar cases began to be made."... -
Alice -

Case law is a legal system in which judicial precedent is recognized as the primary source of law. This means that a court's decision in a particular case becomes a binding rule for courts when considering similar cases in the future.
Some key features of case law:
Binding for lower courts. Decisions of higher courts must be taken into account by lower courts when considering similar cases. The principle of stare decisis ("let the decision stand") enshrines this binding nature.
Creating new norms or interpreting laws. A judicial precedent can both create new legal norms not already in force and provide binding interpretations of existing laws.
Hierarchy of precedents. Decisions made by higher courts are binding on lower courts. Higher courts are independent of the decisions of lower courts, and a court of first instance is not bound by the decision of another court of the same level.

🎚️

[kromer]

Quote: Hand of the Eye

I see... you don't know and you can't explain...)))

You said "educate yourself" and wrote the same thing, if you don't count the nonsense about the Dolina case, which shows that you are very far from jurisprudence.
So, let me clarify.
Case law is a legal system in which the main source rights are recognized judicial precedent.
Roman law is a legal system in which the main source rights are recognized law.
To understand: a judicial precedent in case law can contradict the law, but in Roman law it cannot.
Have you ever seen a court decision? It's clearly stated there: based on such-and-such an article of such-and-such a Russian Federation Code, the court ruled such-and-such.
That is, a court decision based on the law. You won't see this in court decisions based on case law.
I hope I explained it clearly.

[baltiksi]

The main difference between case law, the so-called Anglo-Saxon law, is the absence of codes like we have in continental law.

[Zoldat_A]

Quote: Hand of the Eye

Really? What do you think the term "case law" is?

In the US, for example, there's case law. So, if a judge made a decision in the 1800s, today a similar case would be heard in five minutes, based on that decision. This is done to preserve the court's authority—if a decision has ALREADY been made, there can't be different decisions on identical cases.
We have judicial practice. It's just non-binding statistics. That's why for the same offense, in one case, you might get a year of probation, and in another, eight years of strict imprisonment.

Incidentally, this is precisely why the lawyer's profession is so valuable in America. They are essentially archivists, searching through archives for similar cases and deciding whether to use the precedent in the client's best interests or to avoid mentioning it.

My head of the legal department, an extremely professional and experienced guy, explained all this to me.

[Right hand of the eye]

You are right that officially we don't have case law, but in essence, based on existing practice, we do!)))

[WILL]

Quote: Hand of the Eye

Based on existing practice, it exists!)))

Well, they say it right - arguing with a woman is useless.
Everything was explained to you, practically chewed over, but you, with a stubbornness that deserves better, continue to repeat the same thing like a mantra.
There is no case law in Russia, period. Remember this at least as an axiom.

[Right hand of the eye]

It actually exists! And the Dolina case is a clear example of this... It's sad that such a simple thing is so difficult for many to grasp, even after being explained...)))

[WILL]

Okay, I'm going to burn my diploma.
I'm embarrassed to ask, what is your nationality?

[Right hand of the eye]

By the way, I also have diplomas... One is a secondary specialized education, specifically in law, the other is a higher education, but the specialized specialty is not related to jurisprudence, I admit...
So I don’t even know which of our educations, as well as conscious abilities, are higher...)))

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: Hand of the Eye

One - secondary specialized education, specifically legal specialization

Based on your statements about case law in the Russian Federation, I'm afraid to imagine how you were taught

[kromer]

Quote: Hand of the Eye

One - secondary specialized education, specifically legal specialization

In which African country did you receive this diploma?

[Right hand of the eye]

Ah, well, everything is clear with you... When there is nothing to cover with facts, weak minds resort to personal attacks and so on...

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: Hand of the Eye

When there is nothing to cover with facts, weak minds resort to personal attacks and so on...

I answered your question, can you refute my answer?

[kromer]

No, I'm just curious in which country in the world they teach law in such a specific way.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote from kromer

I'm just wondering in which country in the world they teach law in such a specific way.

I was wondering something else: when did they start teaching jurisprudence as a specialization in technical schools?

[kromer]

It's not like that in Russia. That's why I asked her where she got her education.

[WILL]

Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir

I was wondering something else: when did they start teaching jurisprudence as a specialization in technical schools?

There is such a thing, they issue a diploma with an amazing specialization - "legal assistant" but with it, it seems like you can go straight to the second year of a specialized university.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Well, this is a modern perversion, like a lawyer, but not really a lawyer.
and judging by the young lady's knowledge, she's not a lawyer at all, perhaps it was precisely these incompetent lawyers who made the initial decisions on the Valley case

[Sergej1972]

Law schools existed even during Soviet times. There were also specialized secondary police schools.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: Sergej1972

Legal technical schools existed during Soviet times as well.

the first time I've heard
Who were they preparing?

Quote: Sergej1972

There were secondary specialized police schools.

Well, this is still a bit different.

[Sergej1972]

There were law schools (somewhere until the 50s) and legal technical schools. They trained specialists for social security, for businesses (low-level legal advisers), and as court secretaries. Graduates could work as notaries, their assistants, and bailiffs. Sometimes they were even hired as investigators in the police in remote areas, but with the condition of obtaining a higher legal education, usually through correspondence. There's a lot of information on this topic online. Even today, there are colleges and technical schools that offer secondary legal education.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: Sergej1972

(somewhere until the 50s)

then the young lady should be given a stole

[Sergej1972]

You misunderstood. Educational institutions called "law schools" existed until the 50s. And law schools continued to exist afterward, both during the Soviet and post-Soviet periods.
And now, even regular colleges train lawyers with a secondary education. I saw an ad for one such college. They train drivers, cooks, and lawyers.) So there's some niche for them. Naturally, these are entry-level specialists, helpers, or support staff; I didn't inquire into the details.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: Sergej1972

They train drivers, cooks, and lawyers there.) That means there is some kind of niche for them.

They are simply training incompetent people who don't understand what case law is.

[kromer]

Quote: ANIMAL

They issue a diploma with a surprising specialization - "legal assistant"

You're confused. "Legal assistant" is a qualification. A specialization is a field of application. Civil law, tax law, family law, etc. are all specializations.

[WILL]

Quote: Hand of the Eye

One - secondary specialized education, specifically legal specialization, )

Well, that means you were doing "knocking" on the "Theory of State and Law," the foundation of all jurisprudence.
You remained silent when asked about your nationality, surprise me.

[kromer]

Quote: ANIMAL

You remained silent when asked about your nationality, surprise me.

Well, judging by the nickname "Right Hand of the Eye," we can draw some conclusions. After all, the right hand is the right hand, and the eye is the eye. So, the right hand of the eye is the right hand of the eye.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote from kromer

Well, judging by the nickname "Right Hand of the Eye"

The young lady studied literature in the same place where she studied jurisprudence and understood the phrase "apple of the eye" as the right hand of the eye

[WILL]

It's not even a matter of studying literature; "the apple of one's eye" is an outdated expression, and the Law of God isn't a required subject. It's more a question of general education. For example, I only remember it from King David's prayer: "Keep me, O Lord, as the apple of your eye; under the shelter of Your wings You will cover me."
P.S. The picture is awesome
I hope the girl wasn't offended.

[Sergej1972]

As far as I know, secondary specialized legal education is focused on practical work; theory is studied there to a minimum.

[kromer]

Quote: Sergej1972

As far as I know, secondary specialized legal education is focused on practical work; theory is studied there to a minimum.

In fact, they're training clerks. They're supposed to file papers, mail decisions, call and inquire, and so on. They don't need to know legal intricacies; their job is the court clerk's office and the court secretariat.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote from kromer

File the papers and send the decision by mail.

come here, stay here, go away from here

[Derbenev Anton]

There is no case law in Russia, period. Remember this at least as an axiom.

There is no precedent. Rather, it was a telephone clarification of legal norms and the current political situation, using somewhat unsophisticated language.

[Zoldat_A]

The difference between the American system and ours is that they can't rule differently in similar cases. And if a judge ignores these things, a higher court will hit them so hard in the karma that it will crack. For them, the presence of the necessary precedent practically guarantees the desired decision.

But here, the judge's decision is purely subjective, and can only be challenged through legal means. And in response to any mention of "judicial practice," he'll yawn and say, "So what?... That's what I decided..."And no amount of archival examples will convince him otherwise in court. And that's the case in any court.

And yes. Let them throw slippers at me, but having worked in construction my whole life, I deal with court cases regularly. It's like on the road – "If you don't get it, you get it." So I CATEGORICALLY don't believe in the impartiality of our judges. And their decisions are almost always backed by either money or "good people asked me to."
The only way to win in court is with the highest level of professionalism and experience, like my head of legal services. When he corners the judge and his opponents in court, it becomes impossible for the judge to make an unlawful decision, no matter the cost. A judge is also human, and he, too, wants to live peacefully in his position until retirement, free from an internal investigation initiated by a higher court.

[Right hand of the eye]

Yeah, judging by the downsides, most people here need to get educated...

[kromer]

Quote: Hand of the Eye

Yeah, judging by the downsides, most people here need to get educated...

Well, if it's up to your level of knowledge, then it's not called "educating", but rather the opposite ))))

[Right hand of the eye]

Well, yes... Okay, with people like you, we need to discuss the case in detail, based on specific facts. So, a direct question: Is the decision in the Dolina case, made contrary to the "judicial practice" you claimed, and based on which subsequent courts began to base their decisions on similar cases, a fact of precedent or not? Blah-blah-blah—no need. A clear answer is needed: yes or no?

[kromer]

I won't answer, my nerves are more important to me.

[Right hand of the eye]

Hey, comrade Kromer..., I'm waiting for a clear answer....)))

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: Hand of the Eye

I'm waiting for a clear answer....)))

I have clearly answered your question

[Right hand of the eye]

Me. Actually, Kromera asked... What did you CLEARLY answer there and what did you not know?

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: Hand of the Eye

What did you CLEARLY answer there and what did you not know?

I'll answer with your words: when there's nothing to cover with, they start to wag the cardan shaft
You all know, since I responded to your post, you received a notification about this response, but you have nothing to answer.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: Hand of the Eye

Need a clear answer - yes or no?

No, moreover, after the decision on the "Dolina case" there were opposite decisions on similar cases

[Right hand of the eye]

Come on - for example? Links please...

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: Hand of the Eye

Come on - for example?

The Evseychik Case

[Igool]

Quote: Hand of the Eye

They started to base their decision on the court decision in the Dolina case. Is this a fact of precedent law or not?

No, it's a consequence of judicial practice. Which is not the same as case law.

[kromer]

Quote: Zoldat_A

Therefore, I CATEGORICALLY do not believe in the impartiality of our judges.

No, there are often impartial courts. When the judge doesn't see any benefit in the case and therefore doesn't care whether to jail or acquit, as long as the case is closed quickly and they can go to a football match and have a beer.

[Zoldat_A]

Quote from kromer

There are also quite often impartial courts. When the judge doesn't see his own benefit in the case and therefore doesn't care whether to jail or acquit

An acquaintance opened an account in my father's name a week after his death, transferring funds from two of his father's accounts into one. He had a notarized power of attorney from his deceased father for all bank transactions. He is the sole legal heir.
Our green bank didn't want to give the money back without a court order, citing the fact that it was impossible to open an account in the name of a dead person (why did they open one? Why didn't they tell me it wasn't possible? Why didn't they ask if the father was alive and well?).

It would seem the situation is more than obvious: bank negligence plus the patient's banking illiteracy.
It took 7 months and 8(!) court hearings to make an OBVIOUS decision, to which the judge personally had nothing to do.

I suggested to him then that they were deliberately dragging out cases. If everything were resolved in 10 minutes, then two dozen cases a day could be dismissed, and the courts would be out of work within a month. So why pay the judges and judicial staff salaries, and why are there so many judges?

[kromer]

Quote: Zoldat_A

I suggested to him then that they were deliberately dragging out cases. If everything were resolved in 10 minutes, then two dozen cases a day could be dismissed, and the courts would be out of work within a month. So why pay the judges and judicial staff salaries, and why are there so many judges?

As an option - it is quite functional.

Quote: Zoldat_A

There was a notarized power of attorney from the deceased father for any actions in the bank.

Any notarized power of attorney terminates upon the death of the principal, according to paragraph 1 of Article 188 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. So, your friend, ignorant of the law, violated it.

[Zoldat_A]

Quote from kromer

Your friend, not knowing the law, broke it.

The point is that if it is so important for the bank whether the principal is alive or not, they could have inquired.
Incidentally, when his mother died two years earlier, the bank advised him not to transfer her account to his own name, lest he lose the interest, and said it didn't matter whether the person who opened the account was alive or dead. There were no problems with that account.
Perhaps the boy operator who said this was just so smart... I already scolded him for not coming to my work and not consulting with my head of the legal department.
And he, my friend, is no fool; he's an aircraft designer by training, but he works as a shoemaker, making the coolest custom shoes. He's not required to know the Civil Code.

Basically, it was a mutual mistake, but he'd worn himself out over the past seven months. And the referees, with their red tape, added to his fun...

[kromer]

Quote: Hand of the Eye

but in essence, based on existing practice, it exists!)))

What does this remind me of? Aaaah, exactly!!!
"Do you see the gopher?
- No.
- And I don't, but he does! (c) feature film DMB

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: Hand of the Eye

Well, how could it not? What about Dolina's case?

there was a Supreme Court ruling

[Right hand of the eye]

A difficult case... Actually, it is precisely the Supreme Court's decision that is being discussed, as a fact of precedent law... in connection with which, and subsequent court decisions based on this decision, it can be asserted that we have precedent law...

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: Hand of the Eye

In fact, it is precisely the provision of this Supreme Court that is being discussed, as a fact of precedent law...

What a lawyer you are!!!!
Can I know your specialization?
Only the decision of the Supreme Court plenum is binding, I'm telling you this as a "lawyer" to a "lawyer"
You can rely on the court's decision, but it is not MANDATORY in interpreting such cases.
in case law, a reference to a similar decision is sufficient to pass a sentence
Do you understand the difference?!

[Right hand of the eye]

Well, I'm tired of proving obvious things... Okay, I'll bow out of this pointless argument. Everyone will stick to their own opinion, based on their level of understanding...)))

[cat Rusich]

Quote: Hand of the Eye

How could it not? What about the Dolina case? After the court ruled against her, based on this precedent, many other earlier court decisions were overturned (in favor of bona fide purchasers), and subsequent verdicts are based on the court's decision in the Dolina case.

Yesterday on Radio Russia, they were discussing the "Dolina case" and how it affected other lawsuits...
And they say that local courts are "independent" from the Supreme Court, and make decisions at their own discretion, while the Supreme Court's decision is merely "advisory" for them...

[Right hand of the eye]

You know, I'm not really interested in what they "say"... I need facts—actual court decisions (in cases similar to Dolina's) that were not in favor of bona fide purchasers... Any specific examples? Imagine that...

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: Hand of the Eye

(In cases similar to Dolina's), the decisions were not in favor of bona fide purchasers... Any specific examples? Imagine that....

I gave you the information, but you disappeared.

[malyvalv]

In a class-based society like Russia, there can be no precedent law. The only question is the degree of rotation of the drawbar.

[Right hand of the eye]

I'll add...))) You wrote that our judges make decisions based on "judicial practice" and not precedent... And it was not for nothing that I gave you the example of the Dolina case, confirming that it was precisely case law that took place, and not judicial practice, as you claim... For, the decision in the Dolina case, I repeat, is a fact confirming the superiority of case law in the court's decision-making... since, "judicial practice" is -

The term "judicial practice" is multifaceted, and there is no single, legally enshrined definition in law. I would say this: in the most general sense, it is The body of court decisions on specific cases and the approaches to resolving legal issues that have developed as a result of these decisions. Simply put, it represents the "live" experience of applying the law: how courts of different instances interpret norms in similar situations, which arguments they accept, and which they reject.
It is important to immediately separate two aspects:
In a broad sense, this is the activity of the courts themselves: the consideration of cases, the review of acts, as well as how experience is accumulated and generalized in the process.
In a narrow sense, this is already a result: stable legal provisions, rules, definitions developed in the course of this activity, which have a certain degree of generality, universal recognition, and influence the resolution of subsequent cases.

And, in our case, in the Dolina case, the court of the highest instance issued a verdict contrary to the established "judicial practice," which proves the existence of case law in our modern judicial system and, moreover, its prevalence over this practice, because in the future, our courts, when making decisions in cases similar to the Dolina case, now rely on this precedent-setting court decision...

[kromer]

Quote: Hand of the Eye

I'll add...)))

Ooooh!!!! Can I go hang myself? I sympathize with your husband.

[Right hand of the eye]

Is there really nothing to object to? No arguments? Okay, I'll count it as a misspelling...

[Igool]

Quote: Hand of the Eye

And in essence, there is nothing to object to?

Why not? You've been told a thousand times that case law differs from judicial practice in that there would be no simple overturning. In Dolina's case, there was precedent—the apartment would have remained hers forever, and subsequent courts would not have been able to change that. They would have been obligated to strictly adhere to that precedent. In the case of judicial practice, different court decisions are possible. A review of the case is also possible based on articles of the Criminal Procedure Code.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: Hand of the Eye

And it was not for nothing that I gave you the example of Dolina’s case, confirming that it was precisely case law that took place, and not judicial practice.

In the Valley case, it was not a precedent, but a decision of the Supreme Court

[2 Level Advisor]

Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir

In the Valley case, it was not a precedent, but a decision of the Supreme Court

And has this court's decision begun to influence the decisions of other courts? I think you understand the logical chain... the beginning... that means the courts began to take it into account when making their decisions (by the way, as did other Supreme Court Plenums in other cases). And the decision of any court... is a precedent... and if it is binding on others, then what? Well, yes... officially, our law is not precedent-based, and each court makes a decision at the discretion of the judge...

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: Level 2 Advisor

and did this court's decision begin to influence the decisions of other courts?

Influence is not case law. There is no influence in case law. There is one decision that is now the norm, even if the case was decided three hundred years ago.

Quote: Level 2 Advisor

(by the way, like other Plenums of the Supreme Court in other matters)

But the decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court is binding, but again, this is not a precedent but an interpretation of the law (that is, subsequent court decisions are based not on a similar case, but on the interpretation of a specific law), just like the decision of the Constitutional Court

[2 Level Advisor]

Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir

Influence is not case law. There is no influence in case law. There is one decision that is now the norm, even if the case was decided three hundred years ago.

Well, I'm not against it. You're right. But the truth is that trial court judges very rarely issue the same decision that a higher court recently overturned, even if it was in a completely different case. Even if they think it's correct. So it's not really case law, but there are nuances that show that court decisions often have a very significant influence on other decisions, which, in theory, shouldn't be the case if the law isn't case law.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Yes, but you can appeal it, but in terms of precedent law, this no longer makes sense.

[kromer]

Quote: Level 2 Advisor

and the court's decision, any... precedent.. and if it is mandatory

Why is it called "case law" if it's a judicial precedent? Roman law also has judicial precedent. The only difference is that judicial precedent is primary in case law, while it's secondary in Roman law. Perhaps the word "precedent" is associated with the term "case law"?

[2 Level Advisor]

Quote from kromer

Perhaps the word "precedent" is associated with the name Case Law?

Apparently...

Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir

Yes, but you can appeal it, but in terms of precedent law, this no longer makes sense.

But there are appeals there, right? Or is it because the wrong precedent was used? Probably so... and violations...

[kromer]

Quote: Level 2 Advisor

But there are appeals there, right? Or is it because the wrong precedent was used? Probably so... and violations...

There is an appeal there if the lawyer finds another precedent for a similar case, but with a different court decision.

[paul3390]

Well, it's hard to say. There's no law per se, but there are certainly interpretations of the law. In this case, the lawyer could have cited this:

Article 24. Use of weapons by citizens of the Russian Federation

Citizens of the Russian Federation may use weapons legally available to them to protect life, health, and property in a state of necessary defense or extreme necessity.

The question here is whether the court will find the overflying drone to be an immediate threat to life, health, and property. In other words, whether there was necessary self-defense. And as you can imagine, the judge will rely either on the clarifications of higher courts or on previous decisions.

[Voskolina]

There is also a proverb: “The law is like a drawbar: wherever you turn it, that’s where it goes.”

[Reklastik]

Quote: Bearded

We have no case law.

- Yes, it is actually used.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: Reklastik

- Yes, it is actually used.

Can you even give an example?

[Evgeny64]

As much as you like, let's just not argue about things you don't understand.
Courts constantly review case law before making decisions. In any case, the court's position is always the same; court decisions must not contradict each other, and decisions of higher courts are generally binding on lower courts.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: Evgeny64

As much as you like, let's just not argue about things you don't understand.

Do you understand it?!
judging by the text, not very much,

Quote: Evgeny64

The decisions of higher courts are generally binding on lower courts.

Do you consider this to be case law?!

[Evgeny64]

I'm not going to argue with a non-expert here.
If you don't like my point of view, read Theory of State and Law, if you have time, and other disciplines, but I think Theory of State and Law will be enough.

Do you understand it?!
judging by the text, not very much,

The courts have never, in 35 years, questioned my competence.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

So, as an expert, you claim that there is case law in the Russian Federation?!

[Evgeny64]

Where did I say that? You're incompetent even here, let alone the rest. I told you right away, don't bother arguing about something you understand nothing about.
Russia has a mixed legal system. What's so confusing about that?
You even have to explain the concepts. Why are you jumping into something you don't understand? Just to argue? That's not for me.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

You butted in halfway through the conversation, saying that Russia has case law, and now you're trying to make everyone look like fools.

[Evgeny64]

Once again, where did I say that there is case law in the Russian Federation?
Will you at least answer the question once or will you continue attributing your fabrications to me?

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Receive the correspondence and the post in the middle of which you intervened.

[Evgeny64]

So there will be no facts, have you finally admitted that you lied?
Okay, let's move on, can't you just say outright that you blurted out something that wasn't relevant? Do you have to stir up all this nonsense?

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

You also don't understand Russian well.

[Reklastik]

Do you consider this to be case law?!

- exactly, including.

[Reklastik]

Courts constantly study case law before making a decision.

- Exactly. So you don't understand this. No legal professional would take on a case without first studying what similar cases have already been handled. So, do your research. And understand the situation.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Once again, is there case law in the Russian Federation?

[Evgeny64]

If that's what you want, then yes, that's among other things.
Damn, I explained to you from the start that there are two legal systems in the world: classical English, purely common law, and French codified law (based on Roman law). All the others have variations. We have a mixed system, but more inclined toward codification; the US (for example) is also mixed, but more common law.
I already said, read TGP, then you can talk and there is no need to start discussions here about things you don’t understand.

[Reklastik]

Once again, is there case law in the Russian Federation?

- Once again: formally - no, in fact - it is present. In case you're not in the know.

[Evgeny64]

Are you sure you answered me? Something is clearly off topic.

[Reklastik]

YES, perhaps I was mistaken, Vasilenko replied.

[Evgeny64]

Clear
Well, it's useless with him. He'll never admit he's wrong, he'll just tell outright lies. He'll only downvote you. I've slightly corrected your karma where I found it. He has a habit of running around downvoting everyone he doesn't like, although it seems like most people don't care, but the principle itself captures the essence.

[Reklastik]

Yes, please: Well, here's just one example. Bankruptcy of individuals: Hidden loans (RF Supreme Court ruling from 2025). The law (Article 213.28 of the Federal Law "On Bankruptcy") states that a citizen may not have their debts written off if they behaved "in bad faith" and knowingly provided the bank with false information. But what exactly constitutes "bad faith"? The case of Pavel Ross (2025): The man took out consumer loans from several banks in a couple of days. Since credit histories are not updated instantly, the banks were unaware of the parallel applications. He ultimately filed for bankruptcy. The Supreme Court's position: The RF Supreme Court recognized this as abuse. The court ruled that if a borrower intentionally takes advantage of the delay in updating databases and fails to inform banks about other loans, thereby concealing their true debt burden, their debts cannot be forgiven. Why this is a precedent (Rationale): There is no article prohibiting taking out loans on the same day. However, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has established the definition of a "hidden borrower." Now, any district or arbitration court in the Russian Federation, upon encountering similar behavior by a citizen, will automatically deny their debt forgiveness. What do you think this is if not "forming a legal position"? The law remains the same, but the Supreme Court explains how to interpret it, and this interpretation becomes binding.

[lubesky]

Quote: Bearded

We have no case law.

We have legal acts of PRECEDENTIAL significance and also decisions of higher courts that are binding on lower courts, such as clarifications from the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. There are also acts and resolutions on UNIFORMITY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT of certain articles of the Civil Code and Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and the application of Arbitration Acts. So, prejudicial effect exists in our legislation. The principle of SUPERVISION of UNIFORMITY of law enforcement in most disputes is well-established in all agencies and the State Duma through relevant committees!

[Oberst_71]

You think not? Of course, some courts don't even bother. There's a claimant, and the decision is ready.

[Evgeny64]

We have a mixed legal system, and case law exists in the form of a condition that decisions of higher courts are binding on lower courts.

[Gardamir]

There is a law that prohibits shooting.

[Clear]

Quote: Gardamir

There is a law that prohibits shooting.

One could respond to this statement by saying that there is a law that allows shooting...

[Gardamir]

In Russia, citizens are prohibited from shooting at drones with their personal weapons. Doing so will result in administrative or criminal liability under articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for shooting in populated areas (Article 20.13), intentional damage to property (Article 167), or even sabotage (Article 281, if a mistake is made with a government drone). Only specialized law enforcement agencies (FSB, Ministry of Internal Affairs, National Guard, etc.) are legally authorized to shoot down UAVs.

[Clear]

Quote: Gardamir

In Russia, citizens are prohibited from shooting at drones with their personal weapons. Doing so will result in administrative or criminal liability under articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for shooting in populated areas (Article 20.13), intentional damage to property (Article 167), or even sabotage (Article 281, if a mistake is made with a government drone). Only specialized law enforcement agencies (FSB, Ministry of Internal Affairs, National Guard, etc.) are legally authorized to shoot down UAVs.

Federal Law of 13.12.1996 N 150-FZ (as amended on 04.07.2026) "On weapons"
Article 24. Use of weapons by citizens of the Russian Federation

Citizens of the Russian Federation may use weapons legally available to them to protect life, health, and property in a state of necessary defense or extreme necessity.

[Gardamir]

Here's the thing: if a shooter sees that a drone is carrying explosives, he has the right to shoot; if the drone flies past, it's a criminal offense.

[paul3390]

Once again, the whole question is whether the court will consider a drone flying overhead to be a state of extreme necessity, and, as a consequence, self-defense.

[Igool]

Quote: paul3390

a state of extreme necessity, and as a consequence - self-defense.

Extreme necessity does not imply the occurrence of consequences necessary for self-defense.
That is, extreme necessity may be present in the absence of necessary self-defense.

[Igool]

The case against the pensioner was dismissed on the basis of paragraph 3, part 1, article 24.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation ("Actions of a person in a state of extreme necessity")

https://ria.ru/20260820/fermer-2112129941.html?in=l

[Reklastik]

Quote: Gardamir

There is a law that prohibits shooting.

- You are a supporter of the letter of the law, but not its spirit.

[bk0010]

Quote: Reklastik

You are a supporter of the letter of the law, but not of the spirit.

The prosecutor, too. The justification: "What if he had hit someone?"

[Gardamir]

It turns out there's a law that allows shooting, but not eating. It all depends on which law the judge chooses.

[Panadol]

It all depends on the prosecutor's office. If they don't uphold the charges, the case won't go to court!
They immediately started playing like ordinary weathervanes. At first: oh, oh, oh! No way! But a propagandist appeared on the radio, and they immediately became defenders! Here we have justice!

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

You're not familiar with the specifics of the Volgograd region. The composition of such structures is somewhat peculiar. It's no wonder the city ranks near the bottom of all rankings.

[Right hand of the eye]

But we see that this time, too, precedent law was at work... The farmer won, contrary to our existing and established laws... and now, I'm sure, other courts will base their decisions on this ruling by a higher judicial body...

[Igool]

Quote: Hand of the Eye

The farmer won, contrary to our existing and prescribed laws.

The farmer won not in defiance of, but in accordance with, existing laws. Based on certain articles of the Criminal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation:

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: Gardamir

There is a law that prohibits shooting.

Extreme necessity. The law permits violation of the prohibition in order to eliminate an immediate danger threatening the individual, rights, interests of society or the state, if this danger could not be eliminated by other means.

[Svetlana]

The prosecutor's arguments are described in the article: Article 20.13 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation: "Shooting weapons in populated areas"
The lawyer disagreed and filed an appeal to a higher court, which upheld the lawyer's arguments. It's unclear what exactly. But it seems to have something to do with self-defense.

Have you read carefully?

...
And yes, if he had shot down the drone, it would have been a completely different story.

[Grancer81]

Conditions of extreme necessity, since UAVs pose a much greater danger.

[Ampifrion]

What are the prosecutor's arguments? For example: how did the defendant determine the drone's identity?

[Panadol]

And there is only one argument: Solovyov performed!

[Evgeny64]

The prosecutor's arguments are elementary: a state of extreme necessity precludes liability unless the damage clearly exceeds the probable consequences of such actions. However, everything is similar to the case of self-defense.

[Grancer81]

The prosecutor's office based its objection on the fact that Mukhin acted under extreme necessity. And the regional court agreed.

[Coconut Tima]

Shooting is only allowed from the window of the wedding car.

[Mazunga]

And only from a machine gun, to observe the ancient, beautiful custom. By the way, this is indeed a custom, and if a horseman doesn't have a machine gun, then he's a half-horseman.

[fruc]

The Volgograd Regional Court overturned the lower court's decision to fine Mukhin,

Now let N. Mukhin be paid all the costs of lawyers and for moral damages that led to his deteriorating health and the costs of medications.

There were lawyers who considered the court's decision to be in accordance with the letter of the law.

I can say one thing about these lawyers, as in a Russian proverb. Everyone knows it.

[Evgeny64]

This is a consequence of the decision: the person who wins the case has the right to reimbursement of all costs from the losing party. In this case, from the Russian treasury. And this will be done; at least, I've never had such claims denied. The amounts may vary, but the fact of compensation for damages is not up for debate.

[Nexcom]

And if the horseman doesn't have a machine gun, but a manual longitudinal-sliding and rotary one - then what is he?

[Voskolina]

Some "zhigits" even have golden pistols.

[Clear]

Quote: coconut tim

Shooting is only allowed from the window of the wedding car.

Now their hands are untied and then they will scream to the whole village, "I swear on my mother!!! ... that they shot down no less than 100500 drones flying over them, including in the stratosphere, troposphere and mesosphere..."

[January]

Quote: coconut tim

Shooting is only allowed from the window of the wedding car.

You've put it together well. It's not about that, but it worked.

[Alf]

Quote: coconut tim

Shooting is only allowed from the window of the wedding car.

Moreover, only persons of one nationality.

[faterdom]

There were lawyers who considered the court's decision to be in accordance with the letter of the law.

These lawyers need to be put into a joint battalion to guard the Mariupol road. And each one should carry a letter, like a Z, for example.

[alexputnik17]

He was fined 40 rubles and had his weapon confiscated. Mukhin's lawyer appealed the decision in the district court, but the appellate court upheld it.

What a surreal experience. A land of fools on a field of miracles. It's time to reward this man or give him a bonus. He called, reported, tried to take someone down, save someone's life and property. A fine. Letter of the law. Did we have the same mess with the letter of the law in WWII?

[Blackbeard]

and then the bureaucrats will be surprised that the majority are so passive and why they do nothing

[January]

Quote: alexputnik17

He called, reported, tried to bring someone down, to save someone’s life and property.

Are you sure you want to keep it? I have nothing against it, but what happens to the drone if a well-aimed old man hits it with a shotgun over, say, an oil depot? Or a busy highway? Or even over a homeowners' association? Maybe we should delegate this task to specially trained people who have at least been asked these questions? I understand there aren't enough of them, but if all the men with double-barreled shotguns start going out at night "to look for drones," I think in just a week there will be fewer of these men, and fewer motorcyclists, too.

[single-n]

What's this guy going to do at the oil depot? What's the range of a hunting rifle there when shooting into the air? 200 meters?
And by the way, will those same trained people sit and watch a drone fly by, instead of firing at it with all their guns? It happens regularly over my city. Drones crash into houses because of electronic warfare. But everyone's calm. But here, it's just everyone. Everyone will kill everyone. And you, in the spirit of those who ban everything, will say that there is no gun culture.

[January]

Don't spread your wild fantasies to me.
Starting with "grandfather at the oil depot" and ending with what I should say.
Reread the text again and try to think about it. Well, maybe it will work.

[single-n]

I have nothing against it, but what will happen to the drone if a well-aimed old man hits it with a gun over, say, an oil depot?

This is whose?

[January]

Okay, I'll have to explain it.
I wasn't talking about "the old man at the oil depot." I was talking about a drone over the oil depot. The difference is small, but very significant. The old man could be a kilometer away or five kilometers away.

Quote: Single-n

What's the range of a hunting rifle when shooting into the air? 200 meters?

Exactly. It's enough to shoot at anything flying overhead, no matter in which direction.

Quote: Single-n

And by the way, will those same trained people sit and watch the drone fly, and not fire at it with all their guns?

Is that how you were taught?
In MTF training, the first thing they teach is understanding when, where, and why you're shooting. So, people who understand won't just sit and watch. But they also won't fire all their guns at a passing high-rise building.
Almost everyone hears explosions over the city regularly. "Drones crash into houses because of electronic warfare"—that's someone's mistake. But that's not enough for you. You want them to fire double-barreled shotguns at houses, too.

Quote: Single-n

And here it's just everyone. Everyone will kill everyone.

That's all true. I hope the old men start training at your house.

[single-n]

Grandpa was beating someone near a high-rise building? Did you even look where it happened?
Volkovo village, Dubovskoye rural settlement, Yelansky district, Volgograd region.
Well, show me an oil depot there, or a multi-story building. I'll also send you the coordinates of this granny village. (50.987666, 43.578119) There are less than a hundred residential buildings there, and three-quarters of the village itself is vegetable gardens and woods.
I'll tell you another thing. These trained people fire so hard, half the neighborhood is shaking. And a couple of weeks ago, a drone flew into a high-rise building. Google "lipets-drone hit." They don't even write about fragments and entire drones falling into gardens and sheds, or into multi-story construction sites anymore. It's just a fact of life. It didn't kill anyone, they didn't have time to post videos online, and thank goodness. It's as if nothing happened. And this is the city center.
They look. But even if you look around, it's of little use.

[Sarboz]

Quote: Single-n

Grandpa was beating someone near a high-rise building? Did you even look where it happened?
Volkovo village, Dubovskoye rural settlement, Yelansky district, Volgograd region.

Listen to the man. He wasn't calling for this particular old man to be punished. He was a good guy. He was absolutely certain the drone's trajectory as it fell couldn't have hit anyone.
We simply can't let the public's use of weapons slide. After all, any gun owner, upon reading about a man being awarded a certificate for shooting down a drone in the woods, will grab a gun and start shooting from the balcony of a high-rise building at passing drones, which will then crash into neighboring buildings.
In this case, MTF fighters are trained and instructed, and do not fire in residential areas, shooting down drones on approach or just as they exit residential areas. A downed drone does not always detonate in the air; even after exploding in mid-air, the notorious "debris" burns and can cause destruction and fires on the ground.

[single-n]

I heard him. It's just unclear what they're doing in the Duma if this issue hasn't been addressed in the fifth year of the war. And grandpa shouldn't have made a big deal out of it, like he was drunk and banging on his neighbors' windows. Just warn them. =That the initiative is certainly a good one. But don't do it again. And run to the Duma. And the Constitutional Court. So they can work on this issue. And send out instructions and explanations to the public. Otherwise, they first tried him as a terrorist. And then immediately backed down. Or is our law like a drawbar?

[Sarboz]

Quote: Single-n

It's just not clear what they're doing in the Duma if this issue hasn't been addressed in the fifth year of the war.

Do you think these are the most vital legislative initiatives during wartime? Can you clearly spell out the provisions of this law to avoid misunderstandings? Let's say everyone is allowed to shoot down enemy drones, and someone fires, the downed drone crashes into a neighbor's house, the house burns down, and people die—God forbid. And then, Grandpa, you give me your law, "I was protecting my neighbors!" Where's my medal? Is that nonsense?
Clearly formalizing the necessity and safety of using weapons in this case is very difficult. To achieve this, volunteers and military personnel receive at least minimal training, and they are commanded by officers who have undergone years of training and have combat experience.

[single-n]

For God's sake. Just one line.
If the crash of the UAV and/or its fragments caused material damage and/or injury to health, and the UAV did not pose an immediate threat to people or property at the time of the downing, the person who downed the UAV is punishable under the relevant articles of the Russian Criminal Code. This includes causing harm through negligence.
And that's it. Is it that hard?

[Sarboz]

Quote: Single-n

And the UAV did not pose an immediate threat to people or property at the time of its downing.

And so the whole structure fell apart. Because no one but God and the people who launched the drone can determine whether the drone posed an "immediate threat" or not. And that's only if the drone didn't stray from its flight mission.
Drones are supposed to be shot down by dedicated air defense units. Anyone can volunteer as a BARS member in the mobile task forces being formed in their region. And they can defend their city with full authority and full responsibility.

[single-n]

It didn't fall apart. If a drone is flying in the middle of nowhere, you can shoot it down without any problem. And this also allows you to shoot down a drone that's attacking you directly. I understand that they like to keep quiet about the situation in Luhansk, for example. Or other border areas. But there, drones are chasing individual buses and cars. You're depriving people of the chance to defend themselves even in this case. Is it really possible to shoot down a drone that's attacking your family? No, no, no. What if something fires somewhere 200 meters from an oil depot? So die peacefully. The main thing is order. I think that as soon as YOU PERSONALLY come under attack from a drone, you'll instantly forget all the nonsense you wrote to justify the bans and start demanding that anti-aircraft guns be distributed to EVERYONE.

[Sarboz]

Quote: Single-n

The main thing is order. I think that as soon as YOU PERSONALLY come under attack from a drone, you'll instantly forget all the nonsense you wrote justifying the bans and start demanding that anti-aircraft guns be distributed to EVERYONE.

Idiots like FP-1, FP-2, and Lyuty fly over me with enviable regularity. A house on the next street was hit. A child died. When they hit me close, it's not just the glass in the double-glazed windows, but the floor itself that shakes. So don't tell me how to live. When you experience it for yourself, you'll understand that it's dangerous to go out with a gun against these idiots. Join BARS, my dear, if you're old enough and have the guts. But this isn't like writing petitions online.

[single-n]

What should I feel? I got a 300 ruble gift from my apartment that ended up in a construction site. And a colleague from work got it in the building next door.
And it's not always 300+ kg broilers flying there. They're often much lighter aircraft. Just yesterday, someone crashed into a bus in Luhansk. Do you think a drone like the Lyuty carrying 90 kg of explosives was flying there?

[Sarboz]

Quote: Single-n

Just yesterday, someone crashed into a bus in Luhansk. Do you think it was a drone, like the Fierce One, with 90 kg of explosives?

And here, at our bus stop, debris from a huge, long-range, airplane-type drone fell on our bus. One person was killed, a passerby, and ten were injured. Just the other day.
The situation in the border areas is different. You're right about that. Ukrainian fascists are using small quadcopters wherever they can get their hands on them, specifically targeting civilian cars, buses, ambulances, and fire trucks. And I've always advocated for civilians in such situations to use hunting rifles to shoot them down. This is a case of "extreme necessity," and there's no need for unnecessary legislation.

[bk0010]

Quote: ian

I have nothing against it, but what will happen to the drone if a well-aimed old man hits it with a gun over, say, an oil depot?

Then the drone would have done much less damage than if it had hit the target.

[January]

Quote: bk0010

Then the drone would have done much less damage than if it had hit the target.

It is highly likely that it would have been shot down like 95% of others by air defense units.

[Button]

Quote: ian

Maybe we should entrust this to specially trained people who have at least been asked these questions?

Perhaps it's time, in the fifth year of the Security Council, to take the new reality into account and adapt law enforcement practices to it. Instead of laying out clear procedures for civilian gun owners to follow when repelling drone attacks, they're being slapped on the wrist to keep them out of trouble, discouraging the public from defending themselves, their neighbors, and the economy from drone strikes. Why not assume that gun owners are responsible and law-abiding individuals? And if there are clear rules, they'll strictly adhere to them.

[Sarboz]

Quote: ian

I have nothing against it, but what happens to a drone if a well-aimed old man hits it with a shotgun over, say, an oil depot? Or a busy highway? Or even over a homeowners' association?

You've been given a bunch of negatives, but practice shows that your concerns are correct.
We've all seen the consequences of UkrPPO's work, when anti-aircraft missiles or rockets try to shoot down a drone over a city, and when either the downed drone or the missile itself hits residential buildings.
Unfortunately, this has happened here too. People often make fun of "debris" hitting oil refineries. But a drone that's actually shot down and broken up in mid-air is extremely dangerous, because after the crash, even if the explosives don't detonate, the spilled fuel can cause a massive fire. I witnessed one. A private house caught fire instantly and burned completely within half an hour.
After this, they try not to shoot down drones over cities. This doesn't always work. If a drone manages to break through, they wait until it reaches the target they're covering.

[January]

Quote: Sarboz

practice testifies in favor of your fears

People aren't interested in reality. They upvote (and downvote) how they want it to be.

[Grancer81]

What if it's shot down by specially trained people? And if this drone goes and crashes into an oil depot or a highway after they shoot it, what then?

[January]

Would you operate electronic warfare systems or MANPADS if the opportunity presented itself? That would be the responsibility of people who were trained to do it properly and who understand what they're doing, not some guy who saw it and gave it a whack.

[Grancer81]

Some people have a rule: "Just in case something goes wrong..."

[Gardamir]

By the way, everyone forgot the law when, after 2014, Ukrainians who fought on our side were sent to Kyiv.

[Cananecat]

Quote: alexputnik17

Did we have the same hassle with the letter of the law in WWII?

Unfortunately, in any war, people in our country received various types of penalties with the wording "for the loss of entrusted military equipment" destroyed by the enemy during combat operations.

[Clear]

Quote: alexputnik17

He was fined 40 rubles and had his weapon confiscated. Mukhin's lawyer appealed the decision in the district court, but the appellate court upheld it.

What a surreal experience. A land of fools on a field of miracles. It's time to reward this man or give him a bonus. He called, reported, tried to take someone down, save someone's life and property. A fine. Letter of the law. Did we have the same mess with the letter of the law in WWII?

Thus, Moscow Region Governor Vorobyov awarded a citizen who shot down a similar drone, and State Duma Chairman Volodin awarded...

The man who shot down a UAV in the Moscow region was awarded a State Duma certificate.

https://www.rbc.ru/rbcfreenews/67d961b39a79473ee10451bf

[fruc]

alexputnik17
It's time to reward or award a bonus to a person.

In Moscow, S. Sobyanin awarded such a summer resident a valuable gift. I'm curious to know who filed the lawsuit against N. Mukhin and where, since the case didn't just appear out of nowhere.

[paul3390]

In this case, it all depends on whether the court deems the drone a ground for self-defense. If so, the guy is right. If not, he's caught under Article 20.13.

In my opinion, the Supreme Court requires clarification on the application, as this case has not been previously considered.

[Igool]

Quote: paul3390

In this case, everything depends on whether the court considers the drone to be a reason for self-defense.

https://ria.ru/20260820/fermer-2112129941.html?in=l

VOLGOGRAD, August 20 — RIA Novosti. The Volgograd Regional Court overturned the fine imposed on farmer Nikolai Mukhin for shooting at a drone, his lawyer, Alexander Guguchkin, told RIA Novosti.
«
"The decisions of previous courts have been overturned," he said.
The case against the pensioner was dismissed under paragraph 3, part 1, article 24.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation ("Actions of a person in a state of extreme necessity"). His gun will also be returned.

[paul3390]

There are nuances here. What if a downed drone falls on a neighbor's roof, who will be held responsible? What if it turns out the drone wasn't even a pirate drone but, say, a National Guard one? Incidentally, they could charge you with sabotage, with up to 20 years in prison. Are you sure you can accurately distinguish our drone from the enemy's?

[Pomeranian]

A reasonable opinion, but there's a caveat. If a guy gets a notification on his phone about a drone threat, and, as in this case, he's trying to protect his home, and the Rosgvardia musketeers immediately start playing around with their heavy drones in the same area, then, excuse me, who's the saboteur here? As for distinguishing between ours and others, the Orlan and the UJ-22 Airborne can be confused from a distance, but I can't recall any devices in the domestic market that closely resemble the Lyuty.

[Kotofeich]

Quote: alexputnik17

It's so surreal. A land of fools on a field of miracles.

How about this: "Human Rights Commissioner Yana Lantratova stood up for a girl who drew Smeshariki on a playground in Bolokhovo, Tula Oblast."

[pyagomail.com]

There were lawyers who considered the court's decision to be in accordance with the letter of the law.

If he'd been drunk and shot at crows, yes, he should be punished, but he was shooting at an enemy (a drone). We need to evaluate not only the letter but also the spirit of the law.

[Karelian]

Well, the spirit of the law is a bit complicated. The spirit of Anchorage is at the top of Sarcasm.

[Montezuma]

"I would gnaw out bureaucracy like a wolf." (c)
This was written by V. Mayakovsky a long time ago, but it's still relevant. Was it absolutely necessary to bring the matter to the regional prosecutor's office and the court? Was there no way to sort it out on the spot? Well, yes, the notorious "letter of the law" prevents an objective examination of the circumstances; it's easier to approach the matter formally, and then—"When the master arrives, the master will judge us." (c)

[Nyrobsky]

Bureaucracy rules regardless of the weather, time of year, situation in the country, etc.
It is clear that shooting in populated areas without a valid reason should be punished according to the letter of the law, but when the shooter's actions are clearly justified and aimed at preventing a disaster (crime) and saving the lives of fellow citizens, then it is also necessary to present a reward for this, but no, the punishing hand of an official is superior to reason.
As Peter the Great said (at least the phrase is attributed to him): "There is nothing worse for a state than an obedient fool. Ask him to plant a sapling in the garden, and he, a fool, will break all the fruit-bearing trees."

[Goffman]

The farmer who shot at a drone was saved by public outcry. (Well, yes, not everyone is equal—some are more equal, like Simonyan—who has the power to exempt a friend's husband from conscription and save a man from undeserved punishment by raising the issue.) Otherwise, he would have remained punished. Two instances of the system's inhuman stupidity in recent days. A man decided to fire a gun at a drone flying to bomb... a child decided to decorate a playground with a cheerful picture... both are being punished. What kind of stupid, inhuman selection process is this? Who created it? What kind of citizens does he need—vegetables, reflexively twitching only at the official, nightingale propaganda on TV? He himself will be ousted, like Assad, by external forces, and no one will lift a finger—Russia won't survive with such oaks in power, as has always been the case.

[Alf]

Quote: Gofman

He himself will be driven out by external forces, just like Assad, and no one will lift a finger -

In fact, the March of the Musicians proved this.

[Sarboz]

Quote: Alf

In fact, the March of the Musicians proved this.

The musicians' march proved only that the state's monopoly on violence cannot be violated. And any Makhnovshchina must be nipped in the bud.

[Sergej1972]

Solovyov's channel spoke out in support of both the farmer and the girl, and criticized the local courts and authorities for these cases.

[kromer]

Hmm... thank God, Russia has enough fools to last for another 100 years.

[Ed Mac]

Fools must suffer, and they must also learn if they want to live. If fools don't suffer, then everyone else will.

[Ed Mac]

The man would have been ostracized if big shots like Margarita Simonyan hadn't brought this to light. So, it's basically a mockery of ordinary people: you can die from drones, but you can't defend others or defend yourself? And will judges and police officers be put on trial?

[Alf]

Quote: Ed Mack

Will there be a trial of judges and police officers?

And who will be the judges? What did Griboyedov say?

[Mihail55]

Nikolai Mukhin corrected an air defense error that missed a drone. There's a fine for that!!!! The WAR (even though it's called "SVO") has been going on for four years, and yet our provincial courts live in their own ossified little world! Hey...wake up, ladies and gentlemen...

[abrakadabre]

Quote: frruc

The Volgograd Regional Court overturned the lower court's decision to fine Mukhin,

Now let N. Mukhin be paid all the costs of lawyers and for moral damages that led to his deteriorating health and the costs of medications.

There were lawyers who considered the court's decision to be in accordance with the letter of the law.

I can say one thing about these lawyers, as in a Russian proverb. Everyone knows it.

Moreover, from the funds of the accusing party.

[paul3390]

I wouldn't blame the lawyers, as the issue is truly debatable. The Supreme Court urgently needs clarification on which article applies in this case. It's completely unclear whether a passing drone qualifies as self-defense. After all, it poses no threat to you personally, does it?

[navycat777]

How do we classify this drone? The drone is flying, and it's not just there for fun; it's there to kill someone, one or more people, or valuable property. If it's proven that the drone was definitely Ukrainian, then shooting it down is the responsibility of every citizen to protect lives and property.

[paul3390]

In theory, yes, but who and how will prove that they were firing at a Ukrainian drone?

[Button]

Quote: paul3390

There is an urgent need for clarification from the Supreme Court on which article to apply in such a case.

And here's one. In accordance with Article 24 of the Federal Law "On Weapons," citizens have the right to use weapons in their legal possession to protect life, health, and property in a state of necessary defense or extreme necessity.

[paul3390]

Once again, it's not a given that a drone flying overhead poses a threat to your life and health, as the law interprets it. That's why I say we need clarification.

[Button]

Quote: paul3390

It is not a fact that a drone flying over you poses a threat to your life and health.

Considering the mass texting of alerts about drone danger and the shutdown of mobile internet (reportedly for security reasons), this is precisely what's threatening. Therefore, it's time to take this new reality into account and adapt law enforcement practices to it, rather than dwell on explaining whether something is threatening or not.

[abrakadabre]

I wouldn't blame the lawyers, because the issue is truly controversial.

I would. Their enforcement of the laws is incredibly one-sided. When it comes to corruption, they're exceptionally lenient. When it comes to the lawlessness of national diasporas or the incitement of ethnic hatred by migrants, they're also extremely lenient. The blatant frauds of the likes of Dolins—again, extremely lenient. The imposition of all sorts of religious rules in a constitutionally strictly secular state—oh, miracle! Once again, interpretations are overwhelmingly protective of the criminal side. The widespread violations of labor laws by employers—again, maximum blindness and peacefulness. And so on, and so on, and so on...
But as soon as a person begins to defend themselves, their civil rights, and even this negligent state itself—presto! It's up to the fullest extent of the law. And it doesn't matter whether the issue is controversial or completely straightforward.
They'd deal with shootings at holidays and weddings in notorious diasporas with such zeal and severity. But here he is, daring to shoot at an enemy drone.

[Andrey Petrov]

The fine was only repealed because it generated a lot of publicity and the topic was well-covered. But there's so much more lawlessness that no one even knows about!!!

[Right hand of the eye]

And on the topic—of course, I support the farmer! We no longer have a rear, and that's a fact. And since the war has spread throughout the Russian Federation, I believe every citizen, its defender, has the right to repel enemy attacks as best they can...
The main thing here is to always take into account the MOTIVE of those citizens who used the weapons available to them.

[Totor5]

I'm not surprised—after all, we still call air strikes on cities acts of terrorism, not war. Yet, for some reason, Zeliboba hasn't been declared a terrorist.

People seem to kill in war, but there is still no death penalty.

[Maks1995]

IMHO, this is information noise.
One precedent. It can be used both ways.

Here's a poll: how many similar cases have there been, how many have been shot at drones, how many have been fined, etc., and how many have been acquitted...

it would be clearer...

[snow mountain]

Quote: Clear

This is a legal precedent.

Unfortunately, we don't have case law.

[Asper_Daffy]

In the end, lawlessness and telephone law won, unfortunately.

[Yura]

Quote: Asper_Daffy

In the end, lawlessness and telephone law won, unfortunately.

I understand your irony, but if without it, then by and large it is public opinion.

[Asper_Daffy]

It doesn't matter. Before the elections, officials decided to bow to public opinion, but what happened? Ultimately, the law's requirements were ignored, meaning lawlessness prevailed. Whether public opinion or something else played a role is a matter of detail; the essence remains the same.

[Incvizitor]

There's no point in shooting them down over houses, let them shoot into the field and fall on the house.
A day ago, near Noginsk, we also had some flying near a dacha and exploding in an unknown location. Several UAVs were blown away by the anti-aircraft missile system, and the rest exploded with such a bang that either they were jammed or they themselves did it.

[16112014nk]

Quote: Nyrobsky

Bureaucracy rules regardless of the weather, time of year, situation in the country, etc.

In the Tula region, a girl drew Smeshariki on a playground surface.
There's an article about Smeshariki.
The administration declared the images to be "damage to municipal property" and threatened the child with criminal liability under Articles 167 and 214 of the Russian Criminal Code.
A curtain.

[Asper_Daffy]

Quote: "V.I. Dahl, "Proverbs of the Russian People""

In Russia, thank God, fools a hundred years in stock.

[Roman_Vasilyevich]

The Volgograd Regional Court, having examined the case, terminated the proceedings on the basis of paragraph 3 of part 1 of article 24.5 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation (actions in a state of extreme necessity) and returned the seized TOZ-34 REM 12-gauge shotgun to the owner.

[tatarin1972]

Did the court really reverse its decision? It's odd; they usually fight to the bitter end, but this one happened so quickly, within a few days.

[Million]

Do not do good - you will not receive evil.

[Million]

Now even this has become possible:

Tula Region officials threatened a child with prosecution for drawing on a playground.

https://www.gazeta.ru/social/2026/08/20/23424409.shtml?ysclid=mt1t4h4cmw47780822

[Vadim S]

In short, when the invaders come to us, we can't do anything, just go about our daily business and smile, otherwise the remaining authorities will sue us for excessive self-defense. Passivity and indifference are encouraged, I get it.

[alexputnik17]

Quote: paul3390

There are nuances here. What if a downed drone falls on a neighbor's roof, who will be held responsible? What if it turns out the drone wasn't even a Bandar-logo one, but, say, a National Guard one?

You're right. Now let's look at the facts, not the letter of the law.
The seasoned, avid hunters I've met know the rules for storing, carrying, transporting, and other gun trivia like a five-year-old knows the multiplication tables.
The man was found to have violated shooting regulations in a populated area. This meant an investigation was underway to determine where he was standing and where he fired from. There were seconds between the call and the shot. This meant the experienced hunter had already violated the letter of the law by walking through a populated area with a loaded, uncased weapon. Two.
Then the person calls 112, knowing the conversation is being recorded and is usually transferred to the police and/or the National Guard. I can only assume he was reporting drones, not a drone. Because it's only a matter of time before you see one and shoot at another. Unless he's a skilled cowboy. Three.
Next, the man, knowing he's talking and the conversation is being recorded, shoots at the drone. This is a second violation of the law. Four.
A man who truly understood he was breaking the law went on the warpath, knowing he could save lives and property. He'll worry about the law later. He has other things to worry about. And I can also assume he was walking around with his gun out because he'd already seen the drones. Where they were coming from and whose they might be. He wasn't just sitting there drinking in a field, saying, "They're flying too low again." Five.
What's the bottom line?
I believe this should be rewarded, not criticized or punished. Even though we're not at war, but in the Second World War, this man is in a real combat zone and was trying to help eliminate a threat with concrete actions. A real threat from a seasoned and uncompromising enemy.
Something like that. Naturally, IMHO.
P.S.: I have been in the legal profession for 33 years and have seen the letters of the law to the highest feelings.
We were in the Supreme Court, and from a legal standpoint, everything was clear and orderly. My former wealthy boss was ripped off. There was a double ownership dispute. This happens often. Under the investment agreement, people paid for the apartment, moved in, did the renovations, paid various expenses, and then lived there waiting for the property to be registered.
And the great Armenian builders actually ceded the property to my boss, according to the documents, for debts. There was no way to get to the bottom of our deal. The presiding judge turned off the recording before the judges retired to the conference room and said bluntly: "Young men, this is these citizens' only housing, while your citizen has half the city's worth of these apartments. If you're going to try and show off, I'm going to issue a ruling to demolish the four floors of the building containing the disputed apartment and provide these citizens with alternative housing from the builders. Go and tell the principal to novate, well, change the agreement with the builders to something else. Because the judge will write in the ruling that the right to the disputed apartment belongs to that party."
And he was right 10 times over. That's the letter of the law.

[Maluck]

The law is not always just, just as justice is not always legal.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

The judges who handed down the guilty verdict were sent to work at the oil refinery

[Al manah]

Write a proposal to the person who appoints them, then tell them about the results.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: Al Manah

then tell us about the results.

Why destroy dreams so vilely?

[alexputnik17]

Quote: Kotofeich

And how do you like this: "Authorized

Pretty good I just didn't know the topic. It's important to note that the girl wasn't three, but fourteen. And she wasn't drawing with chalk on the pavement, but with a marker or felt-tip pen on the playground equipment. Muslims marry off girls of that age. So she was right in the head. What the hell was that girl doing on the playground?
Russia, after all, isn't a country of frightened bureaucrats and functionaries. They grow like mushrooms, multiplying by budding. En masse. The Commissioner saw creative talent in the girl. She's an artist, that's how she sees it. Well then. I'd like to wish this girl, when she turns 20, to paint the front door of the Commissioner's apartment with the word "shower" and a full-length abbreviation. She's a creator, that's how she sees it.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

Quote: alexputnik17

Muslims give such girls in marriage at this age.

What does this have to do with Russian laws?

Quote: alexputnik17

The girl is not 3 years old, but 14

from a legal point of view, a child

Quote: alexputnik17

What the hell was that girl doing on the playground?

played, has every right

Quote: alexputnik17

And she didn’t draw with chalk on the asphalt, but with a marker or felt-tip pen on the playground equipment.

It's exactly with chalk and by the way it's quite cool and beautiful

[Apprentice_SAM]

Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir

It's exactly with chalk and by the way it's quite cool and beautiful

What does this remind me of? Oh, right – a music video by the punk band "Red Mold," "Daltonichka."
And, as life experience shows, as soon as such children transfer their art onto the property of the defenders of these same children, the position of these "defenders" immediately changes radically.

[Vasilenko Vladimir]

You wrote something stupid, I'm sorry.

[Apprentice_SAM]

Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir

You wrote something stupid, I'm sorry.

What's so stupid about it? If it's about contacting you, then I agree—yes, I was stupid. All the best to your supporters, and, as they say, 9,8 m/s². Don't judge me too harshly!

[Moneron]

The judges have gone rogue... they're allowing the local population to die meekly, doing nothing to protect themselves. They don their robes and, with an air of importance, decide people's destinies... deliberately failing to delve into the essence of the matter, in light of current events... this is open sabotage, secretly encouraging the enemy to continue their actions. Isn't it time to conduct a rigorous lustration of the judiciary? The overwhelming accusatory bias in the court decisions suggests that the judiciary is deliberately stirring up a wave of discontent toward the current government...

[Frank Muller]

You know, what happened isn't surprising at all. When legislation exists that imposes fines "for loud laughter in public," "for passionate kissing in the street," and other "inventions" of the newly minted "guardians of morality," such prosecutions are perfectly within the "legal norms." But they could easily have charged the brave old man with "exceeding the limits of necessary self-defense"? Case law isn't common in our justice system, but unfortunately, a precedent for similar cases has been established: is it worthwhile to resist the hostile actions of an aggressive adversary at all costs if you could also be held criminally liable for it?

[Al manah]

What miracles don't happen before elections...

[alexputnik17]

Quote: Vasilenko Vladimir

The girl is not 3 years old, but 14

from a legal point of view, a child
Quote: alexputnik17
What the hell was that girl doing on the playground?

played, has every right
Quote: alexputnik17
And she didn’t draw with chalk on the asphalt, but with a marker or felt-tip pen on the playground equipment.

It's exactly with chalk and by the way it's quite cool and beautiful

Is this removable?
14 is the age of a person with limited legal capacity. This means they're perfectly capable of reasoning, but their parents will be held accountable if anything happens.
They threatened to charge me with criminal charges here, that's too much. I like this beauty too, but if it's not removed, they could very well get a disciplinary hearing.
They always paint the elevator so beautifully, but it's not the place to paint. And yes, at 14 I was already marching in formation and understood what was right and wrong, what was allowed and what wasn't. And girls are way ahead of us in terms of development.
I wrote about "for marriage" for a reason. Smart people who respect their archaic, thousand-year-old religious laws understand perfectly well that a 14-year-old has reached puberty and is also perfectly capable and independent. I simply respect that.
Don't give me the "they're just children" line. According to our law, a 14-year-old isn't yet legally competent, but we still prosecute them for criminal offenses. So, the legislature considers people not entirely independent, but aware of their actions and the consequences. Something like that.

[Grancer81]

Actually, a playground and an elevator are two different things.
And drawings on a playground are normal. For a normal person...
Children's drawings on the playground...

[Victal]

In 404, an old woman with a jar of pickles becomes a hero; in Russia, a man with a double-barreled shotgun, under the same circumstances, becomes a criminal. You certainly won't win a war that way.

[duschman80-81]

The independence of judges from morality, law and common sense has long since gone over the edge.

[Word]

The reeds rustled, the trees bent. Officials decided to exterminate the last of the elderly patriots.
Grandpa was lucky; there are people in the prosecutor's office who correctly interpret the law and circumstances.

[trromar]

They've gone crazy - the man needs to be rewarded; you see, they don't have such a law in court.

[Andrey_5]

It's the fifth year of the war, and a Russian man is being tried for shooting at the enemy. That's how we'll win... yeah.

[Lynx2000]

Quote: Bearded

We have no case law.

Yes, formally we don't have case law. Judges are independent in their decisions and base their decisions on the law, the materials of the specific case, and the evidence presented. But in reality, courts rely on practice. Similar disputes often involve similar legal issues. If different regions issue different decisions on similar cases, this indicates a misinterpretation of the law and possibly corruption.
Higher courts (for example, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation) summarize their practice and issue clarifications on how to apply certain rules in specific situations. Lower courts rely on these official clarifications.
Often, participants in legal proceedings refer to the clarifications of a Higher Court on a similar process...

Recently, an accident occurred in the Altai Mountains. A bear dragged a female tourist from her tent at a tourist camp within the rural settlement of Artybash. She died. While she was alive, the bear mauled her. Bystanders tried to rescue her, but no one shot the bear. There are guns and hunters in the village...

[Free Island]

As a lawyer with many years of experience, I can tell you that arbitration has long been developing a truly unified practice for similar situations, and it's been VERY successful. But general jurisdiction is still a mixed bag, and they often don't care about Supreme Court rulings. 😂😂😂 Or rather, they even manage to interpret the Supreme Court rulings differently, to suit their own purposes. 😂😂😂😂

[Alex66]

Quote: Bearded

We have no case law.

It's a shame, our law says that whatever the judge does, that's how it turns out. A precedent would have kept things on track.

[SEVERIN]

This is our Basmanny justice system! - lawlessness!

[Roman Efremov]

We have a good court! It makes a decision, then overturns it. The media hype started, but the court immediately lost its nerve and backed down like a naughty schoolboy.
If the decision was correct and in accordance with the law, don't overturn it. You are the Court, responsible for your decisions; the fates of people are entrusted to you! And if it was clearly wrong, fire those who made it for professional incompetence, and don't allow them to continue to ruin people's lives!

[Abrosimov Sergey Olegovich]

Quote: Roman Efremov

You are the Court, you are responsible for your decisions, the fate of people is entrusted to you!

My God, you can't be that naive!!!

[Roman Efremov]

Well, at least let me dream!

[Pomeranian]

Five years into the supposed war, the country still hasn't created a unified air defense service, even at the regional level. A drone flies by, you call 112, and it takes five to seven minutes to verify the information and ask questions like, "How did you determine it was a drone?" "Where exactly are you? I don't see your location on the map?" and so on and so forth. The government has intimidated people so much that everyone, from officials to ordinary citizens, thinks, "It's just flying past us, so what, let others deal with it."
If such raids had happened in some godless America, they'd have paid a bonus for every shot down, they'd have held a competition to see who could shoot down enemy aircraft, and no one would care how, when, or where you shot them down. In short, as the classic said, "Something's not right in the Danish state..."

[Free Island]

What are you even talking about? 😂😂😂Our country's main problem (under any system) has always been BUREAUCRACY!!! Here's a recent example.
Yuri Yuryevich Evitch, one of the founders of tactical medicine in Russia. He participated in the Syrian conflict (as part of the Wagner PMC and later with the Ministry of Defense), was born in Horlivka, fought in the Donbass militia during the Anti-Terrorist Operation (ATO), and later participated in the Special Military Operations (SVO) with the volunteer unit "Detachment T." He created numerous training centers across Russia, where people going to fight for their own lives, as well as civilians, students, and schoolchildren, are taught tactical medicine, battlefield medic tactics, combat tactics themselves—in short, a wealth of useful information. Evitch himself considers the Sakhalin branch to be one of the most successful. This branch was created with the support of the Governor and the Government of the Sakhalin Region. And not long ago, Evitch flew to Sakhalin, participated in the branch's work, and gave lectures to our security forces. At the same time, Yevich doesn't mince words and always speaks directly about our shortcomings, our shortcomings, etc. And AMONG THE LISTENERS, A BRAIN IN UNIFORM WAS FOUND who DENUNCIATED YEVICH, claiming he was discrediting our armed forces🤦🤦🤦 and a case was opened. But then the case was closed, the brat in uniform got a dressing down. But that wasn't the end of it. Then, when the workers of the Sakhalin branch held public events (coordinated!!!!) demonstrating the work of a medic on the battlefield, blank-firing Kalashnikovs were used, and again a brat in uniform was found who filed a report against the branch workers for shooting in a public place 😂😂😂that's what they call REAR RATS!!! And they themselves don't help the Motherland, the bastards, and they also shit in the rear. They shit, shit, shit. The only thing that should be done is to rip off the shoulder straps of such people in public and go out into the fields, collecting manure with their bare hands after the cows.

[Mamin-Sibiryak]

My balcony offers a wonderful field of fire, and Ukrainian drones have already flown there several times.

[Roman_4]

The court's decision is fair.
We thank the court for making the right decision!
Our congratulations to the farmer!

[STRATEGIES]

I'll say more: the court's decision is appropriate! It's like in the movie "Richard Jewell," where if you punish this farmer now for defending himself against a drone, tomorrow everyone will just watch.

[Free Island]

Now I'd like to see those cops who filed the report against this guy and the judges who initially convicted him in the dock for "treason." What's going on in the heads of these enemies of the people? These clowns clearly need to be investigated for collaborating with the Ukrainian Armed Forces and the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) and receiving funds from Location 404.

[Silba]

In any case, from a purely human perspective, justice has prevailed. When such judicial practice becomes more widespread, the Supreme Court will issue a collection of decisions, or whatever it's called, and in such judicial precedents and cases, this is now mandatory; the main thing is that no one ends up in trouble afterward.

[Anatoly Eliseev]

What happened to the judges, who were fascist collaborators, in my opinion? They imposed a fine for damaging the property of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.